I don't think some of us realize just how good the SCOTUS is

[Spacejet]

Some people seem to think that because of one ruling in 2000 (in which a justice late admitted it was a mistake, and he would not rule that way if he could do it over) the SCOTUS is in bush hands.

The fact is, however, most of the rulings from 2000-present are in our favor. The SCOTUS has obstructed bushco's "everyone we say is a terrorist, we can do what we want" BS, provided favorable GLBT rulings, and today helped to eliminate more of the death penalty.

For those who want to say the SCOTUS is in bush hands - please get a reality check.

Our primary focus from now until 2006 NEEDS to be holding the court. If bush gets to appoint justices we are going to be so screwed it's not even funny. People seem to think the patriot act destroys the constitution. Well I've got news for you. If you want to see the constitution literally destroyed let bush appoint a few justices.

I do hope the senate doesn't let us down.

[eallen]

1. Bush has yet to appoint any justices to the court.

Many of the good rulings in the last few years have been narrowly decided. Thomas and Scalia have written views that are scary. Let's wish long life and continued service from Stevens and Breyer!

[Octafish]

2. Rehnquist is a piece of SHIT!!!!!

The rest of the Felonious Five are just as bad. Back to Bill, the turd. He was into vote suppression back in 1964!


Just Our Bill

by Dennis Roddy
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Saturday, December 2, 2000

Lito Pena is sure of his memory. Thirty-six years ago he, then a Democratic Party poll watcher, got into a shoving match with a Republican who had spent the opening hours of the 1964 election doing his damnedest to keep people from voting in south Phoenix.
"He was holding up minority voters because he knew they were going to vote Democratic," said Pena.

The guy called himself Bill. He knew the law and applied it with the precision of a swordsman. He sat at the table at the Bethune School, a polling place brimming with black citizens, and quizzed voters ad nauseam about where they were from, how long they'd lived there -- every question in the book. A passage of the Constitution was read and people who spoke broken English were ordered to interpret it to prove they had the language skills to vote.

By the time Pena arrived at Bethune, he said, the line to vote was four abreast and a block long. People were giving up and going home.

Pena told the guy to leave. They got into an argument. Shoving followed. Arizona politics can be raw.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/views/120200-101.htm

[PROGRESSIVE1]

12. That would explain Goldwater's razor victory in Arizona.

He won the state by 2/10ths of a point. A swing of .21 would have given the state to Johnson.

[MnFats]

3. at least they threw out child executions.

today.
I was a little surprised by that.
Scalia, of course, was outraged and spewing venom.
He is a truly frightening man, along with his hypocritical protege, Clarence Thomas.

[Bluebear]

4. All due respect, but I think you need the reality check

Do you want to lay odds that 1 to 3 justices will be named by Bush in the next four years? Do you want to lay odds the senate doesn't let us down?

[Spacejet]

5. It won't be hard

First of all the question is who will leave the court. If it's a fascist, then it doesn't matter if another fascist takes that spot. Balance can still be maintained.

If it's not a fascist, then all we have to do is filibuster.

[reichstag911]

7. Point taken, but

we would then be stuck with another fascist for 30-40 years. You know they're going to look to install a relatively young ideologue.

[reichstag911]

6. Who admitted their mistake, and...

...wtf does it matter after the fact? No do-overs for Supreme Court Justices, and we've been stuck with this moronic asshole because of his/her "mistake."

[independentchristian]

8. In "our" favor???

What about just a good, reasonable decision.

I'm sick and tired of everything in this country being about this side or the other.

What about what's good for the American people, good for the country?

This ruling about youth and the death penalty is a "good decision," and I can care less about "favor."

[SeveneightyWhoa]

10. I guess I'm not the only one..

..seeing something very fishy about this thread.

[Spacejet]

11. It's in our favor BECAUSE it's

"what's good for the American people".

[usregimechange]

9. I don't see us picking up too many Senators in 06 but you are RIGHT.

We better hope the liberal bloc Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter hold on. Even loosing O'Connor and Kennedy would suck but nothing compares to loosing those four.

[gottaB]

13. Why did O'Connor flip on the death penalty?

Why didn't Scalia recuse himself from the Energy Task Force case involving his friend Dick Cheney?

What was the reasoning behind Thomas' dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld?

What could possibly explain Rehnquist's published dissent from the denial of certiorari to Books v. Elkhart? As Justice Stevens reiterated,

“One characteristic of all opinions dissenting from the denial of certiorari is manifest. They are totally unnecessary. They are examples of the purest form of dicta, since they have even less legal significance than the orders of the entire Court which, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter reiterated again and again, have no precedential significance at all.

“Another attribute of these opinions is that they are potentially misleading. Since the Court provides no explanation of the reasons for denying certiorari, the dissenter’s arguments in favor of a grant are not answered and therefore typically appear to be more persuasive than most other opinions. Moreover, since they often omit any reference to valid reasons for denying certiorari, they tend to imply that the Court has been unfaithful to its responsibilities or has implicitly reached a decision on the merits when, in fact, there is no basis for such an inference.”

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1407.ZA.html

On key issues, these Justices have shown themselves to be biased by extreme conservative ideology, partisanship, and personal loyalty to members of the Republican administration. For every instance in which Justice Scalia has, counter to expectations, decided to uphold civil liberties or rights, there are a dozen instances in which he has ceded to Congress, the Executive or the States the authority to trample those rights. And the authoritarian bias is even more pronounced in the decisions of Justice Thomas. These are the Justices whom President Bush has presented as exemplary.

I too am hoping that our Democratic Senators won't let us down.